review_simulation_episode

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose an important boundary: this audit must never authorize execution. However, it does not state whether the tool mutates state, what permissions are required, what the audit returns, or how failures are handled.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the safety boundary is placed after the core purpose. It is concise, though the phrase 'explicit FIRA simulation replay bundle' is somewhat opaque without further context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with two required nested parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this is not complete enough. It gives purpose and a safety constraint but leaves the agent without the information needed to construct or interpret the report and trace payloads.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain the required 'report' and 'trace' parameters at all. 'Replay bundle' hints that they belong together, but the agent gets no semantic mapping for either nested parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb/resource pair: audit a FIRA simulation replay bundle. That is clear enough to distinguish it from generic review tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as review_episode or review_scenario.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended context is implied by 'simulation replay bundle', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing versus sibling review tools. The phrase 'never authorize execution' is a safety constraint rather than a selection guideline.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.